Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Good morning everyone! I totaled up the number of hours this morning and according to my calculations, the jury deliberated 5 hours and 2 minutes yesterday. Understand that part of that time is the Judge's inquiry and admonishment. We were given no times for that start and stop. By my clock, that would put the total time at 13 hours and 19 minutes. I will try to get a confirmation on that time this morning with the PIO.

I'll check in with everyone when I get to court. I will most likely not blog live during the reading of the jury's question, but revert to handwritten notes and transcribe them after. It will be busy down at the courthouse this morning. Howard K. Stern and the other doctor are due to be arraigned this morning.

9:14 am: Hi everyone. I'm in the back row. The jury filed in at this time and right now Spector, Donte and Jennifer Barringer just entered.

9:16 am: BUZZ! The jury just started deliberating.

9:17 am: Rachelle Short just entered 106 and sat beside Spector.

9:18 am: Doron Weinberg just entered and he sat in the first row by Rachelle. They are waiting for the prior hearing to clear out of the table area.

9:19 am: Spector's bodyguard is standing in the antechamber area. Sherri and Linda from San Diego are here. A reporter I've seen before but don't know their name and Lindy from CNN is here. I expect all the press I do know are at Howard K. Stern's arraignment.

9:20 am: Just a reminder, I will not be adding new addresses to the Verdict Watch Request E-mail until tonight.

9:21 am: Weinberg just finished talkng to Spector, Rachelle and Donte. I could hear him talking but not specifically what he said. Weinberg just handed an envelope to Rachelle.

9:25 am: Alan Jackson just entered 106 with Joshua. A reporter I've never seen before has entered. It looks like Jackson and Joshua is going over something with Cindy, the court reporter.

9:27 am: Vania Stuelp from the PIO department just entered. She said the Stern hearing has not even started yet. She tells us there are several attorney's in chambers in with the Judge at the Stern hearing.

9:29 am: Katie and Lisa enter a moment ago, and now Truc Do is here. A producer for a pilot for the networks, a drama is here. I met her back in December.

9:30 am: The bailiff asks everyone to ensure their cell phones are off. Jackson, Truc Do, and Cindy are still going over what looks like a transcript. They are done now.

Beth Karas is at the Stern arraignment but has told me that when she is off with her network, she is going to stop by 106.

Fidler on the bench. Request for readback testimony. The attorney's are satisfied with the transcript with the court reporter. "Let's get the jurors in here," Fidler says.

9:36 am: The alternates enter from 107.

9:36 am: The jurors enter 106.

"The jurors have requested that certain testimony of Jamie Lintemoot be readback. The attorney's think they have identified the specific testimony." If there is anything else, please let us know.

They start with the beginning of her testimony about using a UV light.

Talking about her collecting the white material off the dress. Now the GSR kit test.

It's Cindy, the court reporter, who is reading back the testimony. Now how she collected the swabs for blood from the left and right hands. Now talking about the broken nail.

She collected one swab from the back of the right wrist. "Collected from the back side of the wrist. ... I saw mist-like stains..."

Now talking about the tape lift.

Swabs and slides from the oral cavity, for sexual activity kit.

Collected a piece of hair, dark fiber from the breast area; collected a lipstick from under the decedents left breast.

She also collected the purse.

Now talking about collecting the clothing at the coroner's office.

Talking about how she collected the items, they were put on white butcher paper and left to dry overnight, then individually packaged for later analysis.

Now talking about the purse, shoes, dress, jacket that were collected; identifying them from images on the screen from the transcript.

She collected a hair kit. Various hairs from the body, head, body, eyelash hairs. Collected a pubic hair kit.

Now talking about collecting the sexual assault kit. Swab from right inner upper arm. Breast swabs and genital area swabs.

Swabs are then dried out and packaged.

She collected a fingernail kit; scrapings.

Had the coroner collect a damaged nail kit. She did not analyze any of these items.

Fidler: "Foreperson, Juror #1, does this (answer the question for the readback)?" She nods or says yes. The jury re enters the jury room at 9:50 am.

Weinberg says to a reporter, "Was that revealing?" The reporter introduces herself to Weinberg. Weinberg is still talking to the reporter. The Spector's left a moment before. And we are now back to an empty courtroom except for the few of us in the gallery.

Answering a comment. I don't know any of the personal stats of the jury. I made a conscious decision not to get a copy of their juror questionnaires.

Allan Parachini comes in to speak to his staff member. The Stern arraignment was postponed until May 13th. Both defendants pled not guilty.

10:04 am: I don't know what to make of this readback. I did not watch the jury, I was trying type and not make any spelling errors. Others in the gallery were watching the jury and have opinions about it but since I did not watch the jury, I watched my screen to type, I don't know.

10:10 am: Just to clarify for everyone. This was a readback of Jamie Lintemoot's DIRECT testimony presented by Truc Do. It only covered what she collected on Lana Clarkson's body at the scene and at the coroner's office.

10:16 am: I don't have an opinion on the readback at this point. I think it is premature to speculate as to what part of the testimony they were looking for. The courtroom gallery is very quiet. There are just a few people here.

10:20 am: I need to add that in the readback, in part of the transcript Lintemoot did mention about the other swabs she took of possible blood on the left hand, but that part of the readback went by so quickly I didn't catch it.

10:25 am: Answering a comment. The make-up of the jury appears to be a range of ages. There appear to be those of Caucasian, Asian and Hispanic descent. The jurors are 6/6. The alternates are four women and 1 man.

10:48 am: Answering a comment. I didn't notice the jury dressed any different. There is no guarantee that this jury will speak to the press, if/when a "conclusion" is reached. (That was the word Weinberg used with one of the reporters when they asked him about speaking after a verdict is reached. Last trial, only three jurors met with the press.

10:53 am: Answering a comment. From my opinion of direct and cross of testimony, I believe that spatter on the back of Lana Clarkson's WRISTS proves there is not a single way she could have been holding the weapon and gotten that spatter on the back of her wrists. A few defense experts speculated different ways the weapon could have been held and even Weinberg held the gun in an interesting way at one point. However, it is my opinion from listening to all the testimony that not one of these examples would explain how spatter got on the back of the wrists if Lana Clarkson was holding the weapon. In my opinion, spatter on the back of the wrists is inconsistent with Lana Clarkson holding the weapon.

10:58 am: Answering a comment. Jamie Lintemoot testified on the stand. As part of cross-examination of several witnesses, her testimony from the first trial, where she demonstrated with her hands and indicated where the mist-like blood spatter was on the wrists.

11:00 am: A reporter enters and asks the PIO if it would be possible to see the note the jurors sent. BUZZ! The juror's stopped deliberating. The PIO staff is going to make copies of the note.

11:07 am: The PIO shows us a copy of the note the jurors sent. Here is what it reads:

11:16 am: Answering a comment. The juror who wore the music and comic T-shirts was Juror #5. He was released from his jury service due to financial hardship and replaced with one of the alternates.

11:24 am: Dr. Carroll Adams dropped in to say hello. They are in jury selection in 107 (where he usually hangs out) and there's not enough room yet for him to have a seat, so he stopped in here to chat and say hi. The latest update on the pending Cameron Brown trial is, there is the current case on Judge Pastor's docket and then the Brown case will be next up after that case concludes. That case will take approximately 2 months.

11:28 am: Answering a comment. The piece of broken acrylic nail was never found. It was speculated during the first trial that Dr. Henry Lee found it (then either lost it or stole it) but in the special hearing outside the presence of the jury, it was never officially identified what it was, that he found/collected. The coroner excised the remaining broken thumbnail from Lana Clarkson's hand and preserved it.

11:42: The bailiff takes out of the jury room the cart that the catered food is brought into 106 on.

Some personal good news here. Mr. Sprocket passed the business law part of his exams today! That hard part is over. He has one more exam in the afternoon, on his specific field. He studied quite hard for this test for the past three months.

11:51 am: The caterer enters and we are kicked out.

12:14 pm: I'm eating my lunch now. As a personal request, please understand that I'm a lousy typist with the laptop and external mouse balanced on my lap and even worse with correct grammar/punctuation. Sedonia Sunset is my editor after the fact. She has been painstakingly editing my entries and I'm about 3 weeks behind on getting those entries corrected. I hope y'all will be patient with me in that regard trying to bring you live reporting as it happens inside the courtroom.

12:17 pm: Answering a comment. Jaime Lintemoot testified on Day 13 & Day 14 of the trial. Who knows if they are going over testimony in order, or if they are following issues that each juror is raising. It's all speculation at this point.

On a personal note, no, Mr. Sprocket is not going to be a CPA. He is going for his contractor's license in his field. He's halfway there.

12:30 pm: Answering a comment. In the read back, Jaime Lintemoot testified on direct that she saw small, mist like spatter on the back of Lana Clarkson's wrists. She also indicated that the back of the wrists is where she placed the swab to take a sample.

12:38 pm: Answering a comment. Our kitties are doing fine. They are Sprocket, Scout and Jumpy. Scout recovered well from his surgery. (Back in mid December, he got bit by another animal and the wound got infected; it wouldn't heal. He had emergency surgery to clean out the wound.) Scout is adjusting well to being an inside cat. We think he's put on five pounds from just eating and sleeping. It's obvious that he now weighs more than Sprocket. Sprocket is starting to lose a bit of weight. He's fifteen. Jumpy is still very shy and afraid of his own shadow. Scout and Jumpy play together the most since they are approximately the same age.

1:06 pm: Answering a comment. I won't know the stop time for lunch or the restart time until I get back inside the courtroom. The courtroom is closed to the public from 12 noon until 1:30 pm.

I just learned that Mr. Sprocket passed his second exam! WooHoo!

1:39 pm: I'm inside the courtroom and I just got the times. They stopped at 12:12 pm and restarted at 1:07 pm

1:41 pm: Answering a comment. Allan Parachini is the department head for the Public Information Office. That is the department that handles all liaison between the court and the public for all LA County Courts. He is in the courtroom now, sitting at the big table on the defense side, working on a what looks like a mini computer. He's with us now as the PIO officer to answer any questions.

1:51 pm: CNN has a reporter sitting inside the courtroom, waiting on a verdict. I do not know if they will be live streaming or not. From what I understand, Beth was just here for the Howard K. Stern arraignment. She has not indicated to me that she will be covering the verdict watch for Spector. I don't think so since there already is a CNN reporter in the room.

1:56 pm: Answering a question. This jury only heard (in testimony) that Lana's thumbnail was broken. That's it. There was nothing presented like the last time, with that mini trial-within-a-trial investigating.

The jury heard in closing arguments from Jackson that the piece of nail was never found at the crime scene by the criminalists. This was in response to Mr. Weinberg's point #14, that the nail was broken and that proved that Lana Clarkson was holding the weapon.

In my opinion, this was brilliant strategy by Jackson to argue this in closing.

Alan Parachini and a reporter chat about various subjects. Other than their conversation, it's quite silent in 106. Linda and Sherri are reading books, Lindy, the CNN reporter is reading a magazine and there is another news/reporter person who has been in here before but I don't know his name.

2:11 pm: Answering a comment. The Associated Press reporter is highly respected among her peers. She is a legend at the Associated Press.

2:12 pm: Answering a comment. The schedule. We were told on Monday it is on a day-by-day basis because at any time, the jury could come back with a verdict. So, there are no projected days/times off. We will be notified if there is any change.

2:16 pm: A reporter tells me that she spoke to Dominick Dunne. He is back home from his treatments in Germany. He was feeling really good when he got back but then he developed an infection and he's not feeling so great right now. He is on medication. He is a fighter. His outlook remains good and he is fighting his disease. I have to say, Dominick is one of the most optimistic people I've had to pleasure to meet. Please go to Dominick's Diary, and leave him some well wishes. I do know he reads them regularly.

2:22 pm: Answering a comment. Regarding commenter "Barry's" work, here is the link to what he worked on. The only thing that the Judge mentioned as for waiting time that I remember was regarding if the jury had a question or requested a readback. That time was 45 minutes at the far end. (Time needed for Spector to be here, inside the courtroom.) Fidler did not mention anything about the verdict. It's my GUESS that time would be as long as it takes to get Spector here and possibly the Clarkson family. Other than than that, I have no clue.

2:27 pm: BUZZ! The jury is taking a break.

2:30 pm: We are being asked to leave for the jury break.

3:00 pm: The bailiff opened the doors back up to 106.

Wendy asks us if we want the times. Yes! She tells us the times are 2:25 pm for the break and 2:47 pm they resumed.

3:06 pm: Katie and Lisa take off. The courtroom gallery is eerily silent again. The new PIO in the room is Mary, who is reading the paper. Lindy is here along with another reporter, who is working the Times crossword. Now Sherri is leaving. We can hear sounds, like possibly coming from courtroom 105.

3:12 pm: Contrary to some of the comments, I don't think the jury is taking that much time for lunch and breaks. For the last two days, they took less than an hour lunch. Yesterday, they deliberated a total of 5 hours. Today, they started as soon as they got in the room. Their breaks are actually shorter than what they were given during testimony. Often times, those breaks took 22 to 25 minutes.

To answer a comment, I don't know if Fidler would let them deliberate past 4:00 pm. Probably not, since this would also mean that the alternates would have to stay, too. The alternates would have to agree beforehand, I would think.

3:17 pm: Answering a comment. It's way too soon to predict a hung jury, or a third trial. Give this jury time to do their work.

3:30 pm: A sheriff comes into 106 (one I've seen before) to raid Wendy's candy jar at the edge of her desk. It is so quiet in 106 the clacking of the clock on the wall above me is quite loud, each time it moves ahead another minute.

3:36 pm: Answering a comment. There have been varying opinions about retrials. Some think there would not be a third and yet some reporters that I've talked to indicate they would retry Spector until they got a verdict. I don't know what the answer is. I think that would not be decided until there actually "is" a second hung jury. In my opinion, it's still way too early to tell.

3:51 pm: Terri Keith from City News enters to wait for the end of deliberations time.

3:52 pm: BUZZ! The jurors have ended deliberations.

We are now waiting for them to exit and see what time they will start tomorrow.

3:56 pm: Fidler comes out to speak to Wendy about something. He is not in his robes. He's wearing one of his sweater vests. And just as quickly returns to his chambers.

3:58 pm: Some of the jury seemed jovial, some had no expressions. Court resumes 9:30 am tomorrow.

Good Morning Sprocket. Good to hear from you already it's about 10:30 here in Mississippi. How is your knee today? Hope it feels much better. Yes, it sounds like a very busy day, and we are all just sitting and waiting word from you about what's going on. Phil Spector, I know your reading this, are ya gettin a little shaky? Are you walking around your castle popping Valium? Take a good look, cause when you leave you'll never see it again. Keep up the super good work Sprocket!

Just read your 9:14 comment...glad to know Phil is somewhere to be found. I hope all this waiting is taking a toll on him. I wasn't aware he had been at the courthouse on previous deliberation days. Maybe this is a good sign that something will happen soon.

Wow Sprocket, Awesome coverage! Thank you so much. Now all of us tea leaf readers can speculate about what this readback means. What do you think? Now we finally learn that #1 is foreperson. What can you tell us about him/her?

Hi SProcket, Did you notice any body language of the jury...did it look like they are getting along? After the readback were some looking at others??? Reading tea leaves I know, but there's nothing else to do at this point....

In your opinion, do you think that the jury wanting to hear more from Lintemoot's testimony bodes better for the defense or the prosecution? And what do you think it says about what they may or may not be thinking in deliberations?

What do you make of the read back? I agree with the person that said there must be another hold out. This worries me. God bless you Sprocket for keeping us posted. Are the people on this jury all young or older people?

If the jury is having fun and laughing that's never a good thing for the prosecution. That and these silly technical issues don't look well.

Once while serving as a juror I hung for a Guilty verdict for two days until a mistrial was declared. The rest of the jury was laughing and having such a good time while I did a slow burn. The guy was retried and let go by the second dumb jury.

If this jury cannot decide Phil is guilty, then, the die is cast for all celebrity "justice." It portends that any celebrity, even a Z-list has-been like Phil Spector, can dazzle the mere mortals who are asked to decide their fate.

There is no other explanation for how any adult, without serious cognitive challenges, would actually believe a gorgeous woman like Lana would go to a stranger's home and kill herself while waiting at the door, handbag on her shoulder.... considering the disgusting psychopathic defendant has had a history of threatening to put bullets in women visitors' heads, and has digustingly boasted that all women deserve a bullet in their heads.

If this revolting, blatant miscreant isn't found guilty, then California should stop wasting tax-payer's money on famous people's trials, and just fine future celebrity murderers. Just skip the trials which are futile, and issue them a citations, like a traffic ticket.

Look, he's got the gun shoved in her mouth she raises her hands to push him away, just hold your hands up and pretend you're going to grab specters wrist, now look where your hands are, of course there is mist like splatter on both wrists. G U I L T Y as charged

It sounds to me as if the jury wanted to clarify which side of the hand had the mist. DW tried to convince the jury that JL said something she didn't say. Maybe they just wanted to hear it again from JL. Mist on the back of the wrists means her palms faced away from her mouth which sounds good for the prosecution, but also means DW did a good job of questioning that fact or they wouldn't need a readback.

Sounds like the jury is covering the important stuff and proving DW wrong.

"#10 Spatter on Lana Clarkson's hands. "Everyone knows this showed physically, scientifically that Lana Clarkson didn't hold the weapon. She could not have." Jackson then reminds the jurors by gesturing with his hands where they saw with their own eyes that Jamie Lintemoot indicated she saw blood spatter. He then compares that on his hands to where Mr. Weinberg would have them believe she was indicating. While he's doing this, there are images up on the screen of Jamie Lintemoot indicating where she saw blood and right after that where Fidler indicated for the record that she demonstrated."

It seems to me that you would see blood mist on the back of Clarkson's hands if she held the gun or if Spector did. But Clarkson's RIGHT hand and wrist would have been grabing spector's non-gun hand. If Clarkson was grabbing the gun, you would expect to sed the mist on her LEFT hand.

There has to be one person holding out. I would bet the majority of the jurors are voting guilty and they wanted to prove the mist theory to the one juror who is holding out. If the read-back of the testimony doesn't convince the holdout, this juror will be hung. We will know today. If there isn't a verdict reached today, this jury is hung.

Weinberg tries to narrow down again that the only thing she found on the hands was blood, not fibers and that the blood was only on the medial (wrong term) half area of the back side of the hands. Lintemoot responds, "Correct." I immediately knew that when Lintemoot answered correct, she had to have been confused by the question and that this answer contradicted what she said earlier, and contradicted her testimony in the first trial. And, I knew exactly what Weinberg's purpose was. If Clarkson was holding the gun towards herself with both hands, a thumb on the trigger and her fingers grasping the handle, the only part of her hands and wrists that would be exposed to the direction of her face and ultimately the blood spatter would be that lateral edge of her hand and wrist. This would be Weinberg's "proof" that the blood spatter on Clarkson's hands supports a finding of suicide.

Amazingly, there's no redirect of this witness to clear up this, to me, glaring error and the next witness is called to the stand.

I have been out all day and just came home. Thank you so much Sprocket for your (there are just no words) wonderful reporting. There are so many of us that depend upon you and your descriptions of the action. You fulfill every expectation. I feel that the jury is indeed deliberating. If I was going to reach a guilty verdict on someone, I would have to know that I really did have no other option. So many of us have heard the testimonies and have knowledge of the facts of this case, perhaps, more than some of the lawyers. We need to give people time to pick it all apart and put it back together again. It will be guilty.Tess

How were the jurors dressed today? I understand that they want to look pretty for the cameras after a verdict, but in California that doesn't always hold true. Remember the Peterson jury dressed casually on verdict day!!!

Blood spray on the back of her hands would be the only place it would be if she was holding the gun with both hands. No spray would hit her palms. That is not good at all. Holding that little gun would put her hands so close together. She would have got spray on the backs, not palms of her hands. Spray on the palms of her hand would show defense.

This is not good. Will he get away with murder because of some forensic mumbo-jumbo?

I just don't see how it is reasonable to think that she committed suicide at all. Whether he put the gone in her mouth and pulled the trigger intentionally or there was some terrible altercation gone very bad; it seems beyond a reasonable doubt to me that his actions caused her death. I can imagine them arguing whether it is murder 1 or the lesser charge but how can people really think he is not responsible in some manner?

Anony: You have it totally backwards. But that's OK, you're not on the jury and what they heard in read-back should have clarified for them the fact that PS was holding the gun and Lana was trying to push it away. Think of the terror that was going through her body at that precise moment.........

I'm late getting back into the courtroom after lunch. Sherri and I went over to the underground city and on the way back I got a pair of trouser stockings because my legs felt a bit cold with my short socks. I changed into them before I went back into the courtroom. The first think I notice is Jaime Lintemoot is back on the stand. The prosecution recalled her. As I sit down to try to quickly take a note, Truc is stating there was some confusion as to where the blood spatter was on Clarkson's hands and wrists. She's finished and I don't know if this is redirect or direct since I was 10 minutes late.

Sprocket you have broken this down almost as well as Mark Fuhrman (sp?) did the Martha Moxley murder that put Michael Skakel in prison. You have become somewhat of a good judge of what really needs to be noted by the jurors and trying to overlook the sideshow created by Weinberg in the form of his entire defense in this trial. They (the jurors) must be exhausted, as I know the California tax payers time is. We pray for this to be over soon and for some peace for the Clarkson family. Thank you for your amazing dedication and keeping us informed.

BTW, have you read the deposition online of PS versus Robert Shapiro and how he tried to stiff Shapiro on his fees? It's very interesting, and very indicative of that man's sense of entitlement. I read it over a year ago and the writing is very clearly on the wall (of sound).

Oh dear God please, let justice be done. Put the insect Spector in the penal system where he should have placed six years ago. He would make a good 'cellie' for Brandon Craig had Craig been convicted.Please please let justice prevail.

Read-back, who knows? I had thought for sure with the OJ criminal trial that when that jury wanted the limo driver's read-back it HAD to be to validate a soon-to-be guilty verdict. Who knew that they would just nullify that completely... Still, I'd be mighty nervous if I were Pervy Phil...

I don't understand how they can think anything but guilty if the blood mist is on the back of her hands. No other way for it to get there except that crazy Phil is holding the gun.Thank you Sprocket for all your hard work.

Where I come from, people would enjoy getting free catered meals as long as possible. That being said, you never can tell what a jury will do. They may be going to convict this afternoon. There could be several who feel sorry for Spector and think the poor guy has been "punished enough." We won't know until it ends. Thanks again Sprocket for your work.

So, wasn't the Lintemoot testimony pretty early on? It's past the 5 women. I would think they'd be going over things in order and hashing over any questions or details, --- if that is the case, how much is there left? Doesn't sound as if they've started going over any of the defense stuff yet. ??

Anonymous: 12:13 pm. Ever been on a jury? Juries deliberate in different ways. Some are systematic, some jump from topic to topic. It all depends on the personalities of the jury and where they stand. You just can't infer from this that they haven't gotten to the defense stuff yet.

Hey,Thinkin out loud here, but in Jackson’s closing arguments (the ones on the second day; the day that deliberations started, not the ones on the day that Weinberg finished his) he said, in response to Mr. Weinberg’s #10, that Lintemoots argument proved that Lana couldn’t have held the weapon.In your opinion: do you think the read back helped or hurt Weinberg’s argument that the spatter proves Lana had the gun? Or do you think it helped Jackson’s argument that Lintemoot proved she didn’t have the gun? Or do you think it mattered in relation to that?Keep up the good work!

to 11:52--You are absolutely right--Laughter would indicate the jury is getting along well and not arguing with each other. That would seem to be good for the prosecution.But again, we are just speculating.

to anonymous at 12:35 I've asked Sprocket a couple of times about Scout! I've got 13 or ,,,I should say: they have me ! I'm sure Sprocket will give us the full rundown but probably not until all of this is over, then she can answer some of our questions. In the meantime we are all just speculating. And praying Guilty Guilty Guilty Guilty. He's an insect, where is the bug spray?

This has turned out to be a great day Sprocket! I have been outside working in my garden and just had this overwhelming feeling that I should come check the computer for a possible verdict......instead there stood my "missing for 3 days" cat, Minnie!!! She was my rescue kitten and I was afraid she would just hide somewhere forever. I was so happy to see her and thanks so much for your wonderful coverage! Sharon/Oregon

Seems to me they are discussing the evidence about who was holding the gun..."Is it possible that Lana could have pulled the trigger?" maybe those for a conviction just needed to bring forward the evidence proving Lana could not have been the one that pulled the trigger. NO her nail was NOT broken by pulling the trigger...YES the spatter was on the BACK of her hand ....It really bothers me that the defense can say all they have to do is put a "little" doubt a "possibility" then maybe just maybe he's not guilty. Then the jurors go against their better judgement and think well, maybe, she could have. Did Phil do that good of job a in his lies? Did he clean up the crime scene that well? MAYBE

Here in South Carolina, the judge picks the foreman of the jury. I was picked foreman several times. In each case......I took a straw poll quickly to see who had decided and where the questions were. This case has been ongoing for months. Seems to me it should end by tomorrow if the jurors were awake at all. Let's hope so. Ahhhh, PS doesn't even believe in Easter I assume. Have a peep on me.

Regarding Mr. Sprocket.....is this for the California Contractors' License necessary to bid on projects? If so, that is a very tough test. I took a similar one in WV and fortunately I passed it enabling us to bid on projects in that state. The fail rate is quite high. We have done a few projects UCLA) under the radar screen without our contractors license, but have missed out on many large projects because we dont have one. Congrats to Mr. Sprocket! Keep us updated

I took Weinberg's 14 points and Jackson's responses to them and I copied and pasted them into word. First each of Weinberg's points and then each of Jackson's responses after its respective point. If you do that, then you can see why the jury would want this part of the testimony. Either they are going witness by witness and are only up to JL, or they have reviewed everything and are debating the points that the attorneys stressed in closings. In any case, in order to decide which version of the 14 points you believe, Lintemoot's testimony is a lot more important than it seemed.

Thanks for clarifying Jaime's testimony. I think it is an encouraging sign that they wanted to hear from the State's witness evidence that would clearly be incriminating.

I think it is encouraging that Sprocket heard them laughing, demonstrating comraderie. If there was one or two morons, like in PS1, there probably would be 11 or 12 depressed and angry people and they wouldn't be laughing.

Hooray for Mr. Sprocket! And we all knew he would do well on his test because he was certainly smart enough to pick the right Mrs. Sprocket!!! Now, on to PS and Mrs. PS, now there is something WRONG with that! Sharon/Oregon

Sprockett, as usual, thanks so much for keeping us informed about important cases like Spector. Can you advise if In Session has decided to allow Beth K. to stay out here and report on the case. If so, will the verdict be televised??

Congradulations Mr. Sprocket. I think he and Mrs Sprocket deserve a nice long vacation soon. It doesn't look like there will be a verdict today. This jury is staying out too long. I pray they are not going to have another hung jury.

I am not concerned with the jury deliberation time yet. After all it is a murder case and it is reasonable to review the evidence, even though it seems pretty clear to me that Phil is a murderer. I am sure there are a few people on the jury who will insist on going over everything. If deliberations go over the weekend, then there is a big problem.

If the jury wants to stay longer than the usual 4:00 pm to deliberate, are they able to do that? If I were on the jury, I'd surely want to continue on at this point to reach a conclusion (but that's just me, of course...)!

Fritos! Are you kidding me. He will be able to get these from the commisary but one thing he will have to get use too is the prison's main course. Sausage! Comes in all sizes and colors. I could hear Phil singing hear comes my baby as he is being served.

I still don't think the jury is taking too much time. I'm also comfortable thinking the possibility of the jury aquitting PS is next to impossible. That leave the worst possible scenario being a hung jury. The good part of a hung jury is that we will all be back here again next year debating PS3 and getting to read Sprocket's account of it. That is if she would be willing!!!

Anonymous said: "If the jury is having fun and laughing that's never a good thing for the prosecution. That and these silly technical issues don't look well.

Once while serving as a juror I hung for a Guilty verdict for two days until a mistrial was declared. The rest of the jury was laughing and having such a good time while I did a slow burn. The guy was retried and let go by the second dumb jury."

I don't know about the laughing. I tend to interject humor into just about everything. It's just what I do, and it helps to break tension. Maybe someone on the jury has a similar trait. I'd be much MORE worried about hearing yelling coming from the room and seeing people storming off, red-faced and angry, at the end of the day.

I would think two 15 minute breaks and a 30 minute lunch would be plenty for the short day they put in. No verdict today as after break they will be getting ready to go home. I see Spector 3 coming in 2010. So Sad.

If there is one holdout for not guilty again, I don’t think it’s just a coincidence. If Spector would pay witnesses to lie like Greg Sims & Hayes-Riedl (imo) in addition to his hired gun experts (2 of which were caught in criminal activity in this case), why wouldn’t he bribe a juror? I think he would flee the country if he thought he could go to prison. Just my opinion, of course.

There is obviously someone holding out...not convinced the state proved their case. The jurors are trying to change this person mind, If they felt this was a deadend, they would send a note to Judge Fidler. Unless, of course, this is simply part of the game this holdout is playing. Think about it....if a juror was bought by the defense team, like their expert witnesses were, that juror would be under instructions to appear like he/she is straddling the fence on Spectors fate. Drag it out so not to call attention to yourself. This is exactly what is going on and don't think for a second that AJ & Company aren't looking into this possibility

Great Job today Sprocket, thanks again. I feel that its a good sign that this Jury is taking time to cover the evidence. Will wait patiently for their verdict. Go celebrate with your Honey and see you back here tomorrow.

From the (UK) Telegraph, 17 September 2007, as we waited for the first verdict:

"Sitting in the courtroom, you can sometimes hear laughter coming from the jury room during their break times, which suggests that they are at least unanimous in what constitutes a good joke, if not on what happened in Spector's Alhambra castle in the early hours of February 3, 2003."

As a cat lover, the trick to longevity is dry food only. My black cat Lucifer is 18 and never had canned cat food (Ok, maybe a little juice from tuna cans intended for people). And he throws most of that back up.

I hope the jury for Howard K. bites his --- off. But that could be a year or more away. I assume he has a public defender, what with all the poor-mouthing he has been doing.

"Lipstick under decedant's breast"...is this connected to the lipstick found on his person at the jail? So whose lipstick? Sorry I notice these weird points. And please don't worry about any editing not yet attended to.Wes J.

I felt Linda Deutsh had a defense bias during the first trial, but, my perception was based on my unbridled hatred of the vile bloodsucking insect.

Objectively, Linda is actually a credit to her profession, and she is highly respected, even a legend for that reason.

However, I prefer reading Sprocket to Linda Deutsh, concerning Phil Spector. I don't want objectivity, or innocence before being proven guilty, with this case. He's been proven guilty beyond all doubt by the preponderance of evidence in the court of public opinion, based on our ability to weigh his entire degenerate life of antisocial behavior and history with guns and women.

God bless you, and congratulations to Mr. Sprocket for his success today.- michele

Anyway - thanks Betsy, for all your reporting and yes, Dominick does read and perhaps more importantly, re-reads the comments. In fact, many people do because (including yours truly) because Dominick's fans are one, positive, uplifting group of people. Dominick's fans leave w-o-n-d-e-r-f-u-l messages. So who wouldn't read and re-read them?!

I think the jury is going down the list that Alan Jackson presented in is closing. Agreeing or disagreeing. I expect a verdict late tomorrow or early Thursday. The jury will want to leave early Friday for Good Friday services.

I'm on vacation here in Costa Rica but continuing to watch the developments through your site.

I agree with your sentiment to give the jurors more time. We need to remember that many of them coud be deeply distrustful of the justice system or perhaps have very definite opinions on suicide based on their life experiences. As I recall, one of the women on the jury had a brother commit suicide. If she has bought into the defense theory, it could take some time to convince her that Lana was different than her brother and depression doesn't always lead to suicide. The only way you can convince someone is to go about it methodically because brow beating rarely works.

All of this is speculation. But lets not also forget, the jury could easily be caught between murder 2 and manslaughter. For me, this makes the most sense beacuse it would mean that a juror could have bought into the fact that PS brought out the gun but she ultimately pulled the trigger or it simply went off as an accident. Again, the only way to convince this juror that either way PS acted with a concious disregard for the life of another is to go over the evidence such as the Lindemoot testimony (which clearly shows that her hands were in a defensive position) and piece by piece show them that PS is the only one responsible here. This takes time.

Ultimately we need to give it some more time. If the jury announces that they are deadlocked, then we can start worrying.

Thank you so much Sprocket for covering PS2 for all of us it is much appreciated. Also, congratulations to Mr.Sprocket for passing his tests and hopefully you two will have two things to celebrate soon. I hate to say this but I will, I really felt that the holdout juror (Mr.Engineer) in PS1 never made any sense when explaining why he took the position he did. Things with him just didn't sit well with me. It made me wonder if someone had gotten to him, I don't trust Spector and wouldn't put anything past him or his goons. I'm starting to worry that PS2 will turn out the same way. How would they ever find out? I pray I'm wrong and that justice is served this time for everyone involved.

Sprocket!I'm getting here so late tonight, but I wanted to tell you thank you so much for the wonderful coverage and CONGRATS to Mr. Sprocket! YEAH!

I'm embarrassed to admit this, but for some reason I had it in my head that the jury had Ash Wednesday off! I'm so happy to hear that they do not and will be at it again deliberating tomorrow. I still have a good feeling about this jury, and that this time there will be a guilty verdict. JMHO.

I hope that there is someone like the Anonymous in Costa Rica who talks about the jury and how one needs to calmly go over the details and convince people who are wavering with facts. I believe a calm and rational person like this who would be very helpful if there are people wavering.

Let us just hope that this is the tenor of the group and not a problem person like the infamous person who dominated and eventually derailed the first jury, who, I'll just bet, is reading every bit of the stuff about this hoping to justify himself.

Morning all . . . let the jury do its job. Please don't think for a moment that they would not want to get on about their own lives. I don't believe they are "milking it" based on great food and company. The trial went on for months. They are constrained by the Court's daily schedule (and the fact that some may actually have lives outside the courthouse). Take a deep breath and beeeeee patient! Justice will be served.

CONTRIBUTORS

T&T Readers To Date:

CORRECTIONS

T&T is always happy to make a correction, if warranted, upon request. Correction requests or demands received from a lawyer will be referred to our counsel and will, unavoidably, slow down the correction review process. We consider corrections to be a matter of journalistic integrity and not legal compulsion.

DISCLAIMER:

The expressions in this blog are our opinions or the opinions of our featured writers. Please remember we are not lawyers and those opinions expressed here are each of our individual opinions and should not be taken as legal advice and/or legal opinions. The comments following the blog articles are the opinions and sole property of the commenter's and do not necessarily reflect those of the site owners.